Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I thank the Minister for providing guidance concerning fixed penalty notices and for tabling two new clauses that deal with the issues surrounding Huntingdon Life Sciences. If it becomes necessary for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet again, will the Minister consider changing the order of consideration to ensure that there will be enough time to debate the new clauses? Perhaps he would consider interposing them after schedule 1, as they address issues that are in the public eye, and there is great concern for the welfare of the scientists involved.

Roger Gale: That may be considered, if the Sub-Committee sits again.

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. The Government will carefully consider the comments made by you and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). His suggestion is worthy of being taken seriously, and the matter might usefully be discussed by the usual channels.

Helen Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has anticipated what I was going to say. I draw the Committee's attention to the brutal outrage committed against Brian Cass, the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Will the Minister assure the Committee that there will be ample time to discuss the matter?

Roger Gale: The hon. Lady has succeeded in drawing the Committee's attention to the matter, but it is not a point of order. Clause 15 Designated public places

Clause 15 - Designated public places

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
 `(2A) An order under subsection (2) may only be made by a meeting of the full local authority.'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
 `(5A) The functions of a local authority under this section may not be discharged by an officer of the authority.'.
 No. 34, in page 8, line 22, at end insert— 
 `(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) shall, in particular, provide than any meeting of a local authority, or of a local authority executive or committee, which relates in any way to the making of an order under subsection (2), shall be held in public.'.

Nick Hawkins: The amendments are intended to provide clarification and certainty about the involvement of local authorities in the matter of designated public places. My party feels strongly that the matter should be dealt with only by elected councillors—rather than by delegation to council officers—and that it should be discussed only in full and public meetings of the relevant local authority. It is necessary for that to be made clear because, despite the Government's much-vaunted protestations that they believe in open government, in other legislation they have gone back on the traditional practice of ensuring that the press have proper access to local authority meetings. You will remember, Mr. Gale, as it is a matter of considerable comment, that early in her parliamentary career, Baroness Thatcher introduced a private Member's Bill that succeeded in enshrining in statute the provision that all local authority meetings should be held in public and that the press should be able to report them fully.

Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that many Conservative councillors throughout the country, including those who represent authorities that are controlled by the Conservative party, are working in the cabinet style of government that the Government introduced to make the system more effective, along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was in government. Is there a right hon. Member for Henley versus Lady Thatcher split emerging among the Conservatives on this question?

Nick Hawkins: Local authorities in my area have been forced by legislation to adopt, reluctantly, a system that they find wholly insupportable—as the Minister raised the point, the figures have been fiddled for one of the local authorities in my constituency. On the basis of its real population, the local authority in my constituency should be in a position to benefit from a statutory exemption according to which authorities with a population of less than 85,000 are not liable to the imposition of the new cabinet system. It is only because the Government have indulged in creative accounting and ascribed to my authority an imaginary group of economic migrants and asylum seekers who do not actually exist that their theoretical assessment of the local authority's population is above the 85,000 limit. If I pursue that point any further, I am sure that I will be ruled out of order.
 In fairness, the Minister should concede that these are important new provisions. The Government are suggesting significant duties for local authorities. It is essential to clarify in the Bill that proceedings will take place only if the full local authority meets in public and decisions cannot be delegated.

James Gray: I wish to put on the record a correction to the impression given by the Minister. The Opposition wholeheartedly opposed the local government rules and regulations introduced last year under the Local Government Act 2000. We opposed the Bill on Second and Third Reading and in the House of Lords. We tried to amend it to get rid of the cabinet-style system. We opposed it up and down the nation.
 The Minister is right in saying that certain Conservative-controlled local authorities have been forced by the Labour Government to move towards the cabinet-style system, but we would have preferred to retain the status quo.

Roger Gale: Order. I know that the Minister raised the issue, that hon. Members wish to respond, and that there is a general election in the offing, but can we get back to the amendment?

Nick Hawkins: As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point, with which I agree.
 Returning to the amendment, perhaps the Minister and other hon. Members will recognise that the matters are of substantial public concern.

Stephen McCabe: I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. Just for a second, let us suppose that I accept the general thrust of his argument. Does he concede that in some circumstances—for example, when short notice is given of some public event, perhaps a public demonstration—it might be important that a local authority is able to designate an area without delay, and that to insist on a full meeting of the local authority before the event would actually threaten public order? There might be circumstances in which a sub-committee or even delegated powers would make sense, to prevent a threat to public order.
 Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that interesting point. The view of the Opposition is that, because of the importance of the new powers, every local authority must have an opportunity to debate fully what is a public place for the purposes of the operation of the new powers. One hopes that a local authority would take its responsibilities seriously. The proceedings should always take the form of full, public debates. A good way to ensure that that happens is to state in the Bill that a meeting of the full local authority is required. 
 If the provisions become law, local authorities will be able to plan ahead once they are accustomed to using the powers. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the powers will not be workable if events are arranged at short notice. No doubt, in designating public places, local authorities will need to plan ahead and decide which areas are likely locations for such events. We hope that, over time, local authorities will get used to meeting in public, and will realise that they cannot delegate powers and that it is not in the public interest for events to be arranged at short notice. If a local authority has met in full and designated public places where events that require these powers might occur, events that subsequently take place will be subject to that decision. 
 I hope that the Minister will take our concerns seriously and respond to them. If he says that our amendments are not to the point, but that he will think about tabling Government amendments on the matter, perhaps on Report, we will consider that.

Joan Humble: I want to raise some points about the amendment because, coincidentally, Wyre borough council, which represents half my constituency, will meet this evening to discuss setting up byelaws to limit drinking in public places. The police's recommendation to the council is that although there is not a problem in general, some areas—for example, Fleetwood—have problems.
 The people of Fleetwood are considering whether to set up a town council. They think that it is the responsibility of a town council to debate and discuss law and order and pass on comments to the district council, which covers a wide geographical area.

Oliver Heald: In Royston in my constituency, we have a good town council that does a lot of work along those lines. Is not one of the great benefits of a town council that the local police chief—be that the inspector or the superintendent—can explain police plans to the town council and listen to the town council's priorities?

Joan Humble: That is certainly the case. My point is that I do not want town or parish councils—both of which we have in Lancashire—excluded from active involvement in decision making. Representatives on those councils have a good understanding of their areas. I have raised that issue, as have some of my hon. Friends, with my hon. Friend the Minister.
 The explanatory notes suggest that the Government are considering producing regulations about the procedure that local authorities should follow for designating public places. I urge the Minister to consider how, according to such regulations, parish and town councils might be involved. Will he accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that there will be instances where local authorities may not meet for two or three months, perhaps over the summer? We must ensure that the regulations govern the right areas.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. When we reach clause 18, which defines local authorities, she may want to ask the Minister whether the Government have got it wrong.

Joan Humble: I am sure that we will examine clause 18 in detail, but I am talking about clause 15 and the regulations that will govern the responsibilities of local authorities when making decisions. It is important that an opportunity exists in the setting up of those regulations for the widest possible debate. Parish and town councils must have their say, and I urge the Minister to consider that when drawing up the regulations.

Simon Hughes: I strongly support the amendments. Chapter II, and particularly clause 15, proposes that special regulations should govern some parts of the public domain. Any such restrictions on liberty should be subject to a decision taken by a democratically elected authority, meeting in public with all its members present, and able both to participate in the debate and to vote. It would be wrong for such a decision to be delegated to officers, which is why amendment No. 33 is appropriate. It would also be wrong for such a decision to be delegated to any other part of the local authority that does not meet in public.
 The only plausible argument in opposition to the amendments—that the matter is one for the local authority to decide—does not wash. We are determining, at national level, that there may be restrictions on liberty in some parts of the country. It should not be for local authorities to decide how to go about making those restrictions. Such decisions should be matters of national policy, to be made by central Government, which local authorities can then opt into, and implement, if they so wish. I strongly support the amendments, and hope that the Minister will accept them either in principle or in detail.

Crispin Blunt: I, too, support the amendments. They cover the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) about the inclusion of town and parish councils. In my experience, there is much double representation: many town councillors are also borough councillors. That may be a sad reflection of the difficulty these days in finding people who want to be involved in local politics. I suspect that it is as true in her party as in mine that one falls with great enthusiasm on any talented person who takes a local interest. That person can then end up as a representative on almost as many local bodies as he or she has the capacity to deal with. In my local area, some Horley town councillors and Salfords parish councillors are also representatives on Reigate and Banstead borough council, and even on the county council.
 If the amendments are accepted, there will be an opportunity for a full public discussion of the drinking bans, and any previous discussions that have taken place in a borough or district, at town or parish council level, may be taken into account publicly. Representatives of such subsidiary authorities will probably take part in the full public debate. If the debate were limited to the local authority executive—under a Cabinet-style system, or where there is a directly elected mayor—rather than being in public, and undertaken by the whole authority, there would be no way of knowing whether town and parish council discussions were being taken into account. That is one of the benefits of the proposals, and I hope that the Minister will find a way of incorporating them into the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I leave aside the party political badinage, and apologise to you, Mr. Gale, if I played any part in encouraging it. I was simply seeking to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), which I thought were ignorant.
 I think that the Committee is in general agreement about the substance of the debate. The Government have sympathy with views that hon. Members have expressed today, and with similar points that were made on Second Reading. Hon. Members think it important to ensure that the local authority functions exercised by the full council are not delegated to one council member or to an official in council employ. We believe, however, that that concern will be more appropriately dealt with through the regulations that the Secretary of State will be required to make, and I will clarify the process that will be involved. 
 First, the regulations will be made by statutory instrument, and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, they will describe the procedures to be followed by local authorities. We accept that the Local Government Association and other bodies that have an interest in the matter should be consulted about the precise nature of those regulations. Detailed drafting has to follow these stages of the Bill. 
 The Government's intention is that the regulations should cover all relevant matters, including consultation with the police and others before making the designation order, to ensure that the local authority satisfies itself that the area concerned has experienced the problems associated with public drinking. They should also address the procedures to be followed within the local authority. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take full account of the views of Committee members about both the key role of elected members in these decision-taking processes and the need for decisions to be taken in the full public arena, so that they can be fully and properly debated. 
 Thirdly, the regulations will deal with publicity, including the need to ensure that such areas are clearly identified as being ones to which the powers will apply. 
 Fourthly, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood for the way in which she put her point, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. She was right to emphasise the role of parish and the town councils in informing the decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has also taken up the point very energetically on behalf of her constituents. The point has been powerfully made in Committee and elsewhere in Parliament. 
 However, we do not believe that parish and town councils should have statutory responsibility—that should remain with elected local authorities in the conventional way. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood that the regulations will oblige local authorities to look at the position of parish and town councils, and will positively encourage such councils to participate in deciding what should be regarded as public places in their areas. That might not go as far as she hoped, as it would not replace the elected local authority with the parish or town council, but it would go some way by giving those councils a specific role in the process.

Joan Humble: I do not seek to replace the role of the district council. My concern was that the district or borough council, in making its decision, should consult parish and town councils in its area.

Charles Clarke: I can give an absolute assurance on that point. The regulations will meet that specific point.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is being very helpful and constructive. He has said that he expects that the secondary legislation will deal with some of these points. Will he go one step further and say that he is prepared to consider some of the points that we have made—particularly that the matters should not be delegated to officers and that meetings should always take place in public—and table appropriate amendments on Report?

Charles Clarke: I will consider that. I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I do not want to mislead him. The regulations that will be required and set out by statutory instrument and debated in Parliament by virtue of subsection (4) will deal with a number of issues, including the need to consult; the role of parish and town councils, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood; the procedures to be followed within local authorities; and the need for proper publicity so that there is public information about what happens when the decision is taken. I am not convinced that there is a case for primary legislation to cover all the issues mentioned, but I shall bear in mind the points that have been made, and consider whether we should table amendments on Report.
 I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we agree with the thrust of his point and shall seek to ensure that it is reflected in the regulations. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: As I have said, the Minister has been helpful and constructive and has taken account of the points that have been made, including that made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As the Minister has acknowledged that these are serious points that need to be considered further by the Government, I hope that he will consider tabling amendments on Report. It is always preferable for a serious point to be dealt with in the Bill rather than by secondary legislation.
 In the light of the Minister's assurances and constructive responses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Places which are not designated public places

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in page 8, leave out lines 31 to 33.
 No. 62, in page 8, leave out lines 34 to 36. 
 No. 63, in page 8, leave out lines 37 to 40.

Nick Hawkins: The amendments are intended to help the police and to clarify the situation. In previous debates, I referred to the difficult choices that an ordinary police constable on the beat may face. We ask the Government to consider the reality of policing in a town or city late at night, or in the early hours of the morning.
 There should not be too many exceptions or limitations in the clause. We do not want an ordinary police officer, making difficult decisions about his powers of arrest, to face too many arguments about the legality of the arrest and about whether the person detained was in a public place. The Government have perhaps been too cautious by including paragraphs defining exceptions to designated public places in the Bill. 
 The Minister took seriously the matters raised by our amendments to the previous clause, and we hope that he will take these amendments equally seriously. We want to ensure that officers at the sharp end, who face difficult decisions while policing public places, will have the opportunity to make arrests in what they consider to be such places. 
 In an earlier group of amendments, we sought to give an arresting officer a reasonableness exception. If the officer reasonably believed that somewhere was a designated public place, the arrest would not be rendered unlawful if it was discovered later that it occurred just outside the designated public place. These amendments have the same purpose. 
 If it is clear that a place is a designated public place, there should not be too many restrictions on that, but the Bill makes the exceptions that 
 ``A place is not a designated public place or part of such a place if it is...a place within the curtilage of any licensed premises'' 
or where there is occasional permission, or where sale of intoxicating liquor is not for the time being authorised by an occasional licence. There is a danger of many legalistic arguments arising at a later stage. 
 We will be interested to hear the Minister's response concerning whether the Government are being too complex and too taken up with niceties. We are concerned about the problems that an ordinary police officer will face when exercising the power that he will be given, and he should not have to face later legalistic arguments.

Simon Hughes: Subject to the Minister not saying anything contrary to his intentions, I take the view that the clause, as drafted, is better than it would be with the Tory amendments.
 The purpose of the clause is that public places should be covered by the ban. We must explore other provisions, have further debates and consider other rules that relate to licensed premises, to the spillover from the interior of those premises—into the garden at the back or on the pavement at the front—and to occasional use of extra rooms within them. Those arrangements are dealt with in the clause, but would be much better governed by legislation and regulations that deal with licensed premises, rather than by a public order provision such as the Bill. 
 I understand where the amendments are coming from, but I believe that they are misplaced in this context. I will not support them, unless the Minister unwittingly persuades me to do so with an argument that I have not heard before. I hope that the clause will be passed without amendment.

Crispin Blunt: It was odd to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, a lawyer, complaining about the legalistic arguments that the police will face. It struck me as rather strange that such comments came from a man who, before he came to this place, made his living from legalistic arguments.
 I confess that I have a sneaking sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, because I had hoped that the amendments were designed to probe, rather than to modify, the meaning of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will treat them in that way because I am confused by paragraphs (c) and (d). They refer to a situation in which premises are granted a licence 20 minutes before the occurrence of an incident that prompts the police immediately to try to shut them down. What is the significance of the 20 minutes? I should be grateful if the Minister could explain those paragraphs, and the effects of the amendments, because I could not find guidance on them from the explanatory notes.

Nick Hawkins: In response to my hon. Friend's first point, let me say that those of us who have been involved in legal arguments can see their dangers. He might also understand what we are trying to do with the amendments if I tell him about the concerns of the Police Federation. It says:
 ``Such zones would be brought quickly into disrepute by drinkers moving just out of reach and taunting officers accordingly, bringing the enforcement of such zones quickly into disrepute''. 
Does he not see that danger?

Crispin Blunt: I note that danger but I presume that such an incident could occur at any licensed premises, as paragraph (a) seems to suggest. Paragraph (b) defines areas covered by the Bill rather more carefully, so that the police will understand their limitations. If we are to exempt licensed premises, we should define exactly which parts of the licensed premises that means, making it clear that the licence applies to the whole premises, including the gardens and pavements that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned. However, I remain thoroughly confused by paragraphs (c) and (d) and would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly what they mean.

Charles Clarke: I accept that the amendments were tabled in good spirit to clarify the situation, rather than for any other reason. However, the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey were right.
 I was tempted to urge the Committee to support amendment No. 60, purely to remove from the Bill the word ``curtilage'', which I regard as a lawyers' word, not a real word. I consider myself well educated but I did not know what it meant. I know that my hon. Friends will fully understand the word, but there will be one or two on the Opposition Benches who will not, so I shall clarify what it means. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of curtilage is 
``a small court, yard or piece of ground attached to''
 premises 
``and forming one enclosure with it''. 
That should answer the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). In the context of the Bill, it will cover those areas of pub courtyards or gardens that might not technically be licensed premises but are effectively attached to them. 
 The amendment would remove the exceptions to restrictions on public drinking within a designated area. We believe that the exceptions are necessary to ensure that the powers provided by clause 14 are not exercisable where a license has been granted. As the hon. Gentleman said, I need to clarify the definition of such situations and explain some of the wordings in the clause. The licensing arrangements in relation to subsection (1)(a) to (d) cover the justices' on-licences for premises including pubs, night clubs, wine bars, discotheques, restaurants and hotels. All have met the rigorous tests set by the licensing justices for those venues. 
 Registered non-profit-making clubs such as the Royal British Legion, Conservative, Labour and Liberal clubs and similar sporting clubs have codes of discipline and must have the permission of the magistrates court, via a registration certificate, to supply alcohol to members and their guests. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know the serious issues for magistrates when applications for such permissions are made, and how they are discussed and resolved. 
 An occasional licence is an authority that enables the holder of a justices' on-licence to sell alcohol at premises other than his licensed premises. For example, a licensee might organise a bar at a special venue for a local wedding, ball, festival or other such event. The authority to sell alcohol in those circumstances is given by the licensing justices after full consultation with the police. 
 An occasional permission is granted by the licensing justices to allow an organisation without an existing justices' licence to sell alcohol at unlicensed premises. That is how a charity can sell wine at a fundraising bash in a village hall, or a school can sell wine to parents at an event on school premises designed to raise funds, even though those organisations would not normally have licences for that purpose. Such events are also subject to strict control by the magistrates, and the police have full rights to object. When the courts and police do not object to such activities, and indeed have authorised them, the organisers should not be subject to a ban by the local authority, independent of the process of authorising a licence. 
 The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about time. Section 63 of the Licensing Act 1964 deals with what is traditionally known as drinking-up time. Under that section, where alcohol is supplied under the terms of the Act in any premises during permitted licensing hours, consumption on the premises is permitted for 20 minutes after the period ends, hence the reference to 20 minutes. Historically, drinking-up time has been permitted because sales and supply can continue up to the end of permitted hours, including any extension of them. It is reasonable to allow an individual time to consume what has been purchased. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition can handle that situation in far less than 20 minutes. 
 The fundamental logic of our position is that powers to sell alcohol where a licence has been granted should not be contradicted by a local authority. We sought to set out exceptions to avoid precisely such contradictions. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right to suggest that the issues must be considered in the overall context of reform of the licensing regulations. We predicated our intention to legislate on that at an early stage in a White Paper published some time ago. That is the way to deal with points that may seem rather obscure, rather than taking a position that could set a local authority designation of a public place at odds with a licensing decision. 
 I understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I do not think that he has been wrong or unreasonable. However, I hope that my explanation satisfies him and makes him think that it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I seek clarification on how the provisions for 20 minutes' drinking-up time will work in practice. In effect, does the legislation mean that a local authority can designate a place, but from only 20 minutes after its licence expires? That assumes that there is a process of designation. It would seem odd if a local authority went to the trouble of designating a place, and then had to give a licence on top of that. Is the only effect of the provisions to provide 20 minutes' grace?

Charles Clarke: As I understand it, that is the case—the hon. Gentleman has put it quite correctly. The reason for that is to make the legislation under discussion consistent with the drinking-up time provisions of the Licensing Act 1964, which allows that 20-minute period of grace for the reasons that I gave earlier. The purpose of the measure is to achieve exactly the effect that he has just described. Perhaps I have not clarified the matter.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister has, but that throws up a peculiar problem. The justices, in consultation with the police but on their own authority, might grant a licence for people to drink in a place designated as banned by the local authority. Is there not a potential conflict between one authority and another?

Charles Clarke: There is a tension, but we are talking about exceptions. Premises within a designated area can be given a licence. The measure is designed to make such licences work. I agree that a conflict could arise between the local authority designating a particular geographical area and the magistrates giving a licence to a particular premises in that area. That tension could arise, but I submit that it will not arise in practice, because the magistrates will be aware of the local authority's decision on designating a public area around the area where a licence is being requested. The licensers will take full account of such decisions. Our central preoccupation is to ensure that we do not end up with a contradiction in law between the local authority designation and the licensing process.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, the Minister is being helpful in attempting to deal with the issue that we have raised. I accept that he is trying to deal with tensions that could arise. During my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I spoke about the Police Federation's concern that the provisions could worsen the situation of the police officer on the beat. The federation's point is that, if there are licensed premises within a zone, people can go into those premises and taunt the officers on the beat. That might happen in a town such as Guildford, which has a city centre area that might at some stage be designated, but has a lot of licensed premises within it. Is there not a danger that those whom our chief constable in Surrey calls the Guildford warriors will taunt the police?

Charles Clarke: I understand the point. I should again make it clear that the measure is designed to ensure that the area that is granted a licence is not also a designated public place within the meaning of the legislation. The measure could give rise to the kind of issues under discussion, but it would be far worse if a conflict arose between the granting of a licence in a particular area and a local authority designation. That would lead to a conflict of status, which would be more difficult not only for members of the public but for the police.
 The police have immense experience of dealing with such issues. They deal all the time with the issue of what can take place and how it can take place. We should seek consistency between the licensing regime and the power that we intend to operate, and that is what the clause does. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment. I understand that it was positively meant, but it is important to achieve consistency on the licensing issues in the way that I have tried to describe.

Simon Hughes: I would be grateful if the Minister would consider one small matter. I understand the drinking-up point. However, it seems likely that under any Government there will be reform of the licensing laws. I imagine that consideration will be given to changing the drinking-up provisions, because it is argued that short drinking-up periods contribute to alcohol-induced bad behaviour.
 I assume that a move towards a 30-minute period will be considered. As making any such change explicit in the legislation would be prescriptive, there should be an agreed amendment that refers to the drinking-up period in licensing regulations, so that there is a clear rule. That is almost a drafting point, but it is an attempt to follow the general wish of the Government not to put in the Bill something that is likely to require amendment. We know that there is legislation in the pipeline that will impinge on such provisions.

Charles Clarke: I am happy to examine that possibility and consider whether such an amendment would be appropriate. I am prepared to give an even stronger commitment: any legislation that this Government introduce to amend the licensing law in line with the recent White Paper will encompass amendments to this measure and to all relevant legislation to deal with that point and to ensure consistency.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has responded very constructively. We recognise the tension between the Government's proposals in the Bill and existing licensing law. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, we think that it would help if the Government would keep in mind the points that have been made, and reconsider the matter. We should like to return to it on Report because of the concerns about that tension expressed by the Police Federation and others. The Minister has said that he takes our points seriously and will keep the matter under consideration. We would therefore like to think further about it and consult organisations such as the Police Federation again.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Effect of sections 14 to 16 on byelaws

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 9, line 3, leave out
`Subsections (2) and (3) apply'
 and insert `Subsection (2) applies'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 65, in page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
 No. 129, in page 9, line 17, leave out `10' and insert `5'.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, we want to probe the Government. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are intended to raise the importance of protecting the rights of local authorities to make their own decisions. That issue has come up in earlier debates, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred at an earlier sitting to sunset clauses, of which the Conservatives generally approve. However, we want to probe whether it is appropriate for the Government to say, as they appear to in subsection (3), that whatever a local authority has decided, it will be wiped out after 10 years. Is it appropriate for a national Government thus to insist on overriding what a local authority has decided to do? As the Minister conceded in relation to an intervention made earlier this morning by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, local authorities should consider their own affairs, and decide what is right in such matters.
 We do not think that an automatic override, such as that which the Government propose here, is appropriate, and we wish to probe what they really have in mind. Perhaps they will consider whether it would be more appropriate not to have an automatic 10-year wipeout. I do not wish to take up much Committee time, but I would like to hear the Minister's response and discover the Government's thinking on the matter.

Simon Hughes: Again, I tend to the Government view. The effect of the legislation will be to enable local government to make decisions to implement national legislation. It will therefore effectively render otiose the existing procedure, which is the making of byelaws. That will not impinge on local authorities' rights, because they will still have the right to implement the legislation. The proposal is good, because there should be as little legislation as possible cluttering up the statute books. Byelaws are fine up to a point, but it is very difficult to find out which byelaws exist, and even to get into the place where they are recorded. In my experience—we have probably all had similar experiences—it is even more difficult to find out what the byelaws are than it is to find out what the current legislation is. It is hard enough to access law easily in an up-to-date, word-processed form that takes into account the codification and tidying-up of the law. Byelaws do not relate or cross-refer to one another or legislation, so anyone who is intelligently trying to hunt through them to find relevant regulations is in difficulty. The legislation provides a way of making them easier to discover.
 There would be some merit in providing an easily accessible venue for anyone, including the public, who has an interest in knowing what orders are made by local government under legislation. That would apply to other aspects of law, and certainly to the matters under discussion. We should have a facility to log into the orders made under regulations by the London borough of Southwark, to discover the legislation that it seeks to implement and the way in which it seeks to do so. That is especially important when there is discretion, which will result in differences. There will inevitably be differences in this case, as it depends on local government around the country. 
 My final point touches again on our discussions of fixed penalty notices. If there are different parking regimes, fixed penalty regimes, tariffs and hours, we must try to make the law as comprehensible as possible. Earlier, the Minister expressed a view about the clarity of some wording in the Bill, and I agree with him. We should all make a perpetual effort to make as few laws as possible and to make them as simply drafted, accessible and up to date as possible. We should make as little cross-reference as possible to legislative provisions that no one in their right mind would want to spend a lot of time looking for on a Saturday afternoon in his or her local library.

Charles Clarke: Except lawyers.

Simon Hughes: They would not do so on a Saturday afternoon in the library, but would charge for doing so in their chambers or offices on a Friday afternoon.
 I understand exactly why there should be a sunset provision on the byelaw arrangements, but I hope, whatever the phasing out of the byelaw plans, that everyone can easily access the phasing in of the orders. That should generally be the case on this and other similar legislation.

Crispin Blunt: I hope that the Minister can restrain himself from screaming about a Tory split, but I do not agree with my hon. Friends' amendments, as is clear from my amendment, No. 129. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me. Two principles are conflicting and, as a Conservative, there is a judgment to be made about which side of the argument to take.
 My hon. Friends have properly said that the matter should be decided by local authorities, and that it is not for us to tell them how to deal with byelaws. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has made the equally proper counter-argument that the law should, as far as possible, be simple for the public to understand. Local authorities can probably use the powers through byelaws if they want to, as can be seen in the example of the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. However, as we are to use a vehicle of national legislation, I come down on the side of the argument made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which was that it is better to have only one frame of reference—the national legislation. The rules should come into force through that vehicle, set up under the regulations and guidelines put in place by the Government under secondary legislation. 
 Frankly, we should get on with that process. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 129, which would reduce from 10 years to five years the handover period, in which the public will be confused as to where the authority is coming from. Once the legislation is on the statute book, it would be perfectly proper for local authorities to have a five-year period in which to examine their byelaws and the confusion of rules made in the past, to consider problems that are a nuisance to local people, such as alcohol abuse, and to decide whether they want to clear away byelaws and put the legislation in place. Ten years is too long to subject the public to the confusion of two systems running alongside each other; five years is enough. We must either get on and use the national framework created by the legislation—which means that the Minister will accept amendment No. 129—or accept amendments Nos. 64 and 65, which allow this to remain a matter for local authorities. We have to judge which of those conflicting principles is appropriate. 
 If we believe that the issue is a matter for local authorities and that they should be able to make extra regulations, we must accept my hon. Friend's amendments. If not, why should we allow 10 years? Byelaws should be reviewed as soon as possible; five years should be the longest time allowed for local authorities to review them and I see no case for 10.

Charles Clarke: This has been an interesting discussion. In response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I will let the Committee into the mind of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. While examining the issue, he and I discovered an arcane system of byelaws—what they are and how they are made—that shocked him. In party political vein, I could add that that is all part of the Tory inheritance that we are trying to deal with.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister say how long the procedures for byelaws have been in place? I think that it is at least 150 years.

Charles Clarke: One of my great political regrets is that the Conservatives have been in power for more of the past 150 years than the Labour party. I am glad to repeat the Prime Minister's phrase that the 21st century will be the progressive, and not the conservative, century. I assure the hon. Member for Reigate that the words ``Tory split'' will never pass my lips in the context of this debate; that would be inappropriate.
 The points made by the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Reigate are correct. I would like to reinforce a point that they did not make—[Laughter.] The thought police are here. We are talking about replacing a series of local byelaws with a national framework. One reason for that is to achieve consistency across the country so that, for example, people travelling from Bradford to Blackpool or Brighton on holiday—as people from Bradford often do—will be subject to broadly the same legal framework. There is a national, as well as a general, argument for that. It will not only simplify procedures but establish some national consistency. 
 We agree that there would be confusion if a national framework was side by side with local byelaws, which is why we do not accept amendments Nos. 64 and 65. There are issues about the framework's operation, but it would be unreasonable to think that a local authority should chose to take the byelaw route rather than the national one that we are establishing. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will withdraw amendment No. 64 and will not press amendment No. 65. 
 I am more sympathetic to amendment No. 129, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. It deals with a serious issue. One reason why we decided on 10 years, which may seem rather arbitrary, was because of the 10-year limit in respect of byelaws concerning dog fouling. I will examine his point about whether five years, or a shorter period, might be a more appropriate time scale with a view to tabling a Government amendment on Report. However, I want to discuss with the Local Government Association and other relevant bodies their thoughts and feelings on the matter before committing myself to five years or coming back with a recommendation. Given my assurance that the Government will seriously consider an amendment on Report to reduce the 10-year period, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. 
 Although I understand that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath does not want an overweening Government to have the right to override the wishes of local authorities, it would be worse for citizens, and more difficult for the police, if parallel sets of legislation were in force beyond a transitional period whose length can be debated. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Our probing amendments have proved to be worthwhile as they have succeeded in provoking an interesting debate.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate is correct that a judgment call must be made, and I am grateful that the Minister has acknowledged that the comparative power of central Government and local government is an important issue. 
 The Minister is wise to consider further amendment No. 129, which addresses the sunset clause issue. A local authority is unlikely to forget what byelaws are in place over a five-year period. However, over a longer period, such as 10 years, during which time a number of its officers and councillors might move on or retire, there is a danger that an authority might believe that byelaws were still in force, whereas under the Bill, they would automatically lapse. The Government must consider that issue when pondering what to do on Report, but if they want to include a sunset clause, five years might be preferable to 10. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for taking the matter seriously, and I accept that the Government have decided which side of the dividing line to come down on. I also welcome his assurance that he will keep the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate under review. 
 As the Committee has had a worthwhile debate and the matter has been sufficiently probed, I do not seek to pursue it further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Interpretation of sections 14 to 17.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
`(f) the Greater London Authority'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss amendment No. 74, in clause 30, page 24, line 3, at end insert—
 `(vi) The Greater London Authority'.

Nick Hawkins: The Committee is aware that amendment No. 74 relates to clause 30, and that it matches amendment No. 66, which relates to clause 18. They are intended to probe why the Greater London Authority is not included in the lists. In the light of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said earlier, she may suggest that the Government should at least consider whether town or parish councils should be included, but the Minister answered that by saying that he feels that although the views of town or parish councils might be taken into account in respect of the regulations, they should not be decision-making bodies. However, that argument cannot apply to the Greater London Authority.
 It might be the case that there are major problems in the relationship between the Government and the system that they set up for London. Perhaps that is because the Government's preferred candidate for Mayor of London came a humiliating fourth in the poll, as we all remember. It might also be the case that the only good ideas about law and order in relation to London are coming from Conservative Members of the Greater London Authority. I and some of my colleagues have held discussions with them and we know that they have very good ideas about the subject. 
 We thought that it was right to probe the Government because we are surprised that the Greater London Authority is not on the list of local authorities in clause 18, although unitary authorities, county councils and London borough councils are. We hope that the Government will set out their reason for including London borough councils and not the Greater London Authority, and we look forward to hearing justification of the Government's position.

Simon Hughes: I do not support the amendments but, logically, the Government should. They got into a terrible muddle when the Greater London Authority Bill went through Parliament—I have first-hand experience of that because I had the long and laborious task of serving on the Committee. I think that I am the only Member who served on both the Committee to abolish the Greater London council and the Committee to establish its successor. I was delighted to serve on the latter Committee, although not the first.
 During proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill, the Government started by defining the Greater London Authority as regional government. However, the Deputy Prime Minister became cool on regional government—particularly London regional government where things may not go to plan—so the definition became a unique form of government that was not regional government. By the end of the Committee stage, the definition was local government, which was not the initial plan. However, if the Greater London Authority is defined as local government, it should be included in the clause because the clause refers to local authorities. 
 I believe that the Greater London Authority should be defined as regional government rather than local government. In the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill, we debated the fact that it is a form of regional government that is castrated, weakened, hamstrung and tied to the apron strings. Sadly, that is still the case and would be the case even if Labour had won the mayoral election. 
 Logically, the orders to designate public places should be made by proper local government. In London, that constitutes 32 London borough councils and the City of London. It would not be appropriate for the orders to be made by the tier above that, which has specific functions, and certainly not for them to be made by regional government. I oppose the amendments but if the Government are consistent they will, no doubt, support them.

Oliver Heald: The amendment would allow the Greater London Authority to set zones over a wide area. However, it also gives the Minister an opportunity to explain, in more detail, exactly how he envisages that the provisions will work.
 For example, there may be a street, each side of which is in a different borough. One borough council may think that the road should be designated while the other does not. That will create problems. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the Police Federation. Its chairman, Fred Broughton, wrote to me about the practicality of enforcing such zones, saying that they 
``would be brought quickly into disrepute by drinkers moving just out of reach and taunting officers accordingly, bringing the enforcement of such zones quickly into disrepute.'' 
It would help if the Minister would explain how he envisages enforcement working in the context of a big city. Will there be cases of one borough saying that the left-hand side of a road should be designated, while the neighbouring borough says no? 
 What does the Minister think would be the size of a designated area? Would it be a whole city, an area around a row of shops, or a bit of both? It would be a pity if the measure was introduced and it was then found that nothing could be done about youngsters who are discovered, standing 2 ft beyond the zone, drinking alcohol in the street and being a nuisance. I should be grateful if the Minister would flesh out his vision of the proposals in more detail.

Charles Clarke: I am always happy to flesh out my vision of any aspect for the Committee.
 On the main point of the amendment, without getting into arcane discussions about local versus regional, it would be fundamentally confusing to have two different authorities dealing with the matter. The responsibility of dealing with it should be given either to the Greater London Authority, or to the local London boroughs. It should be given to the London boroughs rather than the GLA, because the issues need to be considered as locally as possible. The idea of the GLA designating some part of Havering or Redbridge is absurd. It would be much more appropriate for the local authorities concerned to do so. 
 There are serious arguments surrounding the issue of the centres of major cities. However, Westminster city council and the City of London have a lot of experience of dealing with such national, citywide issues. Although they are only borough councils, we can be confident that they would handle those matters well. It would be confusing to include the GLA in the organisations that have these powers. It is right to go to the lowest possible level, which in London is that of the borough councils. That is why I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. 
 On the question of boundaries raised by the hon. Gentleman, all local authorities have a boundary question. Clearly, the problem can be more acute in urban areas. There is also the entertaining council tax and borough services argument, exemplified by the dispute between Lambeth and Wandsworth concerning closed circuit television cameras in streets and so on.

Adrian Bailey: It is obvious that the residents of a local authority bordering on a designated area in another authority would hardly thank their elected representatives on the council if their area became a refuge for drunken yobs hurling abuse at the police across the road. Is the problem not just a perceived one, rather than one that reflects democratic realities in local authorities?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right about situations such as that which he has just described. People will respond and deal with such situations as they come along. However, it might help if the guidance that we issue under clause 15(4) refers to the need for local authorities to discuss the situation with neighbouring authorities. That is probably unnecessary, as they would do so routinely, but it may help if we give that assurance, just to clarify the point so that any particular issues that may arise can be dealt with.
 Just as we are requiring local authorities to take account of the views of residents it is reasonable, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, to require them to take account of the views of neighbouring authorities in the event that a designated area borders such an authority. That should minimise the problems although, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, they are hypothetical. They may be so, but it is appropriate for such consultation to be part of the process. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister helpfully clarified the point in relation to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. There should be some recognition of the issue in the guidance, because local authorities do not always meet at the same time and in the same week. An incident might occur on the edge of a place recently designated by a local authority before the bordering local authority has had the chance to meet. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said, that might be a matter more of pure theory than of reality. However, it would help if that were clarified in the guidance.
 I understand what the Minister said about the Government's decision to leave matters to the individual London boroughs. It was helpful for us to hear that from the Minister, and it was right for us to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, in a backhanded contribution, that although he did not agree with us, he thought that the Government should agree with our amendments. Perhaps that, of itself, means that it was proper for us to raise the issue. However, we have heard what the Government have said, and we think that we have achieved our purpose in tabling this probing amendment. I do not seek to prolong the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Closure of certain licensed premises

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 10, line 6, at beginning, insert—
``Following a first and second warning''.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 130, in page 10, line 8, leave out ``reasonably believes that'' and insert ``has evidence that''.
 No. 81, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``is likely to'' and insert— 
``are reasonable grounds to believe that there will''.
 No. 131, in page 10, line 9, leave out ``, or in the vicinity of,''. 
 No. 34A, in page 10, line 9, after ``or'', insert— 
``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.
 No. 36, in page 10, line 9, after ``the'', insert ``immediate''. 
 No. 82, in page 10, line 9, at end, insert ``and related to''. 
 No. 37, in page 10, line 10, leave out 
``is necessary in the interests of'' 
and insert— 
``will significantly assist in securing''. 
No. 132, in page 10, line 12, leave out ``,or in the vicinity of''. 
 No. 35, in page 10, line 12, after ``or'', insert— 
``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.
 No. 76, in page 10, line 12, after first ``the'', insert ``immediate''. 
 No. 83, in page 10, line 12, after ``of'', insert ``and related to''. 
 No. 38, in page 10, line 13, leave out 
``is necessary in the interests of'' 
and insert— 
``will significantly assist in securing''. 
No. 84, in page 10, line 15, after ``(c)'', insert— 
 ``having made a request to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.
 No. 133, in page 10, line 18, at end insert— 
``following at least one request from a uniformed police officer to the person ostensibly having control of the premises to end the disturbance.''.
 No. 39, in page 10, line 18, at end insert— 
 ``(1A) A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance.''.
 No. 77, in page 12, line 26, after second ``or'', insert— 
``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is''.
 No. 92, in page 12, line 30, after ``Act,'', insert— 
``a request having been made to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises''.

Simon Hughes: Amendment No. 4, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), has collected rather a large group of other amendments, which are not in either of our names although some of them, for example amendments Nos. 84, 133 and 39, touch on similar issues.
 As so many groups of amendments relating to clause 19 have been tabled, in opening the debate I shall put on the record what the notes on clauses say about the context, which will explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I have tabled amendment No. 4. We are considering part I of the Bill—the second subsection of chapter II, which deals with the closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance. 
 Whereas the previous debate was about disorder on the street, this one is about disorder in licensed premises. Clause 19 is designed to amend existing legislation, specifically the Licensing Act 1964, to which we referred in the previous debate. It provides for an additional clause, albeit a long one, to be inserted into that Act by this Bill, to allow a senior police officer to make a closure order for a licensed premises. The definition of licensed premises in this proposed additional clause would not include non-profit-making registered clubs such as working men's clubs or the Royal British Legion, unless they had a justices' licence, as opposed to permission to sell drinks only to their members. 
 Police officers of the rank of inspector and above would be given that authority. They would not be required to be present at the scene; they would be able, although absent, to act on reports from officers of lower rank who, presumably, would be present. That would allow them to hold the ``reasonable belief'' on which a closure order would have to be based. Thus officers on the street or in the pub could radio through to the station and obtain permission from their boss to make a closure order. 
 There are various descriptions of how the officer should make an assessment, and amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate and others that relate to those issues. As the clause is drafted, the senior police officer must reasonably believe one of three things: that there is likely to be disorder in the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises, so that the closure would be necessary in the interests of public safety, including customers; that there is already disorder in, or in the immediate vicinity of, the premises, so that they need to be closed for public safety, or that there is excessive noise in the premises, such that they must be closed to prevent a disturbance. 
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Heald rose—

Simon Hughes: I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate.

Crispin Blunt: I suspect that I may be on the same track as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The hon. Gentleman has automatically inserted the word ``immediate'' into his description of ``in the vicinity''. It is not in the Bill, but it would be if my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted. If it is still not in the Bill when it becomes law, it will not apply. The hon. Gentleman's accidental insertion has made the point for us.

Simon Hughes: I concede to that correction. The hon. Gentleman's amendments specify ``in the immediate vicinity''. I paraphrased accurately the exact wording of the notes on clauses, which include that phrase. I forgot as I read that part that it is not in the Bill. He is right to correct me and we will have a perfectly proper sub-debate on that in a moment.
 The purpose of amendment No. 4 and similar amendments is to ensure fair treatment of the owner of the pub or licensed premises or the manager whose name is over the door. The proposal is simply that a closure order should be issued only after reasonable warning. We propose two warnings. The nearest parallel is in football, where a referee shows a player a card and can eventually force him off the pitch. Of course, that rarely happens at my local ground, the Den, where everyone is extremely well behaved at nearly every game. That is why we are leading the second division by a large margin and romping towards inevitable victory. 
 The amendment raises an important principle, but I should declare an interest. The Committee might have heard me say that my dad and granddad were brewers all their working lives—my dad worked for Whitbread's and my granddad for Young's brewery—and therefore had dealings with the licensed trade and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association. I am concerned that a first offence or complaint should not result in overly authoritarian action. It will be easy, particularly for young or inexperienced coppers, to take the view that the remedy should be used, because it is the most immediate, effective remedy, but that would not help the pub's reputation when it is time to renew the licence. If there has been a closure order, the proposed provisions will rightly result in immediate closure and the licence holder will have to go to court to renew the licence. That is perfectly proper. However, a closure by the police is draconian. It will affect someone's business and reputation, so it is important to have proper warnings. 
 I hope that we will agree that we need a proper series of warnings. Under employment law, verbal and written warnings are required before action can be taken. I can imagine circumstances in which first and second warnings could be issued on the same day or even during the same period of licensed opening, particularly in dealing with noise, so the police could use the full power of closing the premises. 
 There will clearly be occasions when the police should have powers to close ``misbehaving premises'' for any of the reasons that have been set out: trouble may be brewing, is already happening or occurring nearby. We are sympathetic to the amendments because they would circumscribe the powers by ensuring that the trouble is in the immediate vicinity, that the order would have a direct effect on the action or that trouble would ensue. The provision is important, but we must give only the powers that we intend to give and those powers must be clearly justified.

Helen Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the order for closure should be given by any officer, or by a senior officer rather than a junior one?

Simon Hughes: I share the view that the order should be given by a senior officer, as the Government broadly propose. It would be an entirely inappropriate decision for an officer on the beat who happened to hear loud music or find a couple of people rolling out of a pub.
 It will help if the Minister outlines, as fairly as he can, his current understanding of the views of those with relevant interests. What do they think of the details of the legislation, as opposed to its generality? The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire may ask a similar question. We must be careful to take account of those with relevant interests. We live in an age in which the traditional pub is under considerable threat in many parts of the country and many pubs have closed in recent years. Happily, they are often more viable now in rural areas than they have been in the past, but they are less viable in urban areas, partly because they are being replaced by bars of a different type. 
 The pub is an important community venue. Public houses should be able to open for as long as the local authority decides. In principle, I am in favour of pubs being open all hours. That is the right way to deal with licensing and reduce alcoholism. We must be careful not to make it even more difficult for people to run pubs, especially those that are not part of multinational or national chains—individual free houses run by small publicans and real ale brewery companies, which are a valuable part of our national infrastructure. I am keen for there to be proper legislation, but we should not act in an over-draconian way on pubs and those who run them. By and large, those people provide an extremely good community service and deserve to be supported in what they do.

Roger Gale: Before we embark on further debate, it might help the Committee if I suggest how we might approach it. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have deliberately selected something of a shopping basket of amendments that covers grounds of evidence, the extent of the area covered by closure orders and requirements to notify a licence holder before making an order. Provided that the Chair is given appropriate notice, I shall be perfectly willing to accept Divisions on all or any of those separate categories.
 I also think that it might help if we go slightly further. Clause 19 is the first of several clauses that deal with closure orders. Given the breadth of the amendments in this group, it may help the Committee to have a wide-ranging debate on it. I am prepared to permit that, given the nature of the clause and subsequent clauses, on the clear understanding that debates will not become repetitive. If we have a wide-ranging debate now, I shall look fiercely on any suggestion that we might need a stand part debate later.

Oliver Heald: That is a most helpful suggestion, for which I am sure that the Committee is grateful.
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a point towards the close of his remarks about the nature of the industry with which we are dealing. The licensed industry runs many public houses and clubs, and is involved in a range of law and order issues. The industry is alarmed, as are we, by the fact that the Government do not seem to have a clear idea of the implications of closure orders. The explanatory notes, in paragraph 374 on page 68, estimate the effect on ``errant'' and ``innocent'' premises, as they are described. They state that the police have estimated that about 800 businesses are likely to fall foul of a closure order and that the commercial and legal costs of closure to the businesses will range from £1,100 to £60,000. The notes go on to say: 
 ``If the number of closures is taken to be approximately 1000, the total cost to errant businesses could be between £1.1 million and £60 million. In addition, the cost to the estimated 15 innocent premises could be between £16,500 and £900,000. The total cost could therefore be between £1.16 million and £60.9 million. The costs to a business of the potential loss of licence following a court hearing are unquantifiable, involving both owners of businesses and salaried managers.'' 
 We can see that there is a wide range of possible costs to innocent and other businesses—£1,100 to £60,000 and £1 million to £60 million. The wide spread of the estimates causes alarm in the industry, and it feels that the power could be wide-ranging and damaging. If the power were properly targeted, it would be a worthwhile exercise and less threatening to the industry. The amendments have been tabled to ensure that closure orders are properly targeted and made only in genuine cases of fault on the part of the landlord or the staff of the premises. It should not be a blanket approach, but effective and targeted. 
 Another aspect of concern is the practicality of closure orders. They will involve a senior police officer making a decision as set out the proposed new sections of the Licensing Act 1964. It is true that the senior police officer will be able to act on the basis of information given to him by other officers, but he will have to make the order. The Police Federation inspectors committee has considerable concerns about how practical that will be because, in reality, the inspectors will be the senior police officers. 
 The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and others in the industry support most of the official Opposition's amendments, including amendment No. 81. It is similar to an amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, and would require the senior police officer not simply to believe that disorder is likely, but to have reasonable grounds for that belief. The Minister might be able to assure us on the legal effect of the current words, but we think that there should be an element of evidence and of reasonable grounds, which is more substantial than a judgment about likelihood. We should be grateful if he would help because, given the potential for substantial losses, it is important to licensees that the process is transparent. 
 Proposed new section 179A refers to the likelihood and presence of disorder ``in the vicinity of'' the premises. Amendments Nos. 34A and 35 would change that to say: 
``in a place for which the licensee is responsible which is in the vicinity of''. 
The Minister might say that if a licensee is responsible for an area, it is part of the licensed premises. In that case, he might want to deal with the matter in other ways than through the amendment. Amendments Nos. 34A, 35 and 77 are intended to probe the question of fault, and the suggestion that the landlord or staff of the premises might not have done everything expected of them. 
 As drafted, the provision is wide and seems to apply to an unspecified vicinity. The feeling in the industry is that if a licensee is responsible for trouble that has occurred, he should be liable, but if that is not the case, there is a risk of unfair closure. The BLRA wants to ensure that a licensee could not be unfairly penalised by the extended closure of his establishment unless he could be held responsible for the anticipated or actual disorder. That would establish a clear ground rule that the closure of premises must be based on disorder directly linked with those premises, and cannot be justified by general local behaviour alone. Responsible publicans who actively discourage rowdy and unacceptable behaviour should not be penalised because they happen to be sited in an area where there is disorder unconnected with the pub. 
 Amendment No. 36 relates to the same issue, specifying that the disorder, or likely disorder, should be in the immediate vicinity of the premises. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has observed, that is what is said in the explanatory notes. The words ``immediate vicinity'' are used in paragraph 38, with which I know the Minister is familiar—he is looking at it as we speak. It says: 
 ``To make a closure order, the senior police officer must reasonably believe that there is likely to be disorder in or in the immediate vicinity of the premises in question''. 
It seems that the amendment is pushing at an open door, as the amendment contains only the words in the explanatory notes. 
 Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 would provide that a disorder should not only be in the immediate vicinity of premises, but related to them. The Minister's previous presentation suggested, as do the notes, that the Government's aim is that there should be a relationship between the licensed premises and the disorder. Why, then, can he not accept the point? 
 Amendment No. 83 concerns whether an action 
``is necessary in the interests of public safety''. 
That is the current wording. We think that 
``will significantly assist in securing public safety'' 
would provide a stricter test, and ensure that closure orders are used only where they will have a positive effect. If the Minister can assure us that his wording is just as rigorous, we will accept it, but it is important that there should be a strict test, where the interests of public safety, and the securing of those interests, are concerned. 
 Amendments Nos. 84 and 92 would ensure, as would amendment No. 4, some procedure whereby the licensee or his staff would be requested to perform as the police wanted. If they failed to do so, proceedings would be taken to make an order. Amendment No. 84 would provide that a request would have to be made 
``to the holder of the licence to act reasonably by reducing or ceasing the emission of noise from the premises'' 
before an order was made. The Minister may say that he expects that to happen, but it would be useful to provide for it in the Bill, as it would for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. 
 Amendment No. 92 makes a similar point, suggesting that a warning system should enable the operator to take action to address excessive noise before extreme closure action takes place. Amendments Nos. 84 and 92 are supported by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. 
 Amendment No. 39 would provide that 
 ``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c)''— 
the noise provision— 
``if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance''. 
Again, that is an early warning provision. 
 Amendment No. 39 would provide that 
 ``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c)'' 
if notice has been given. It is a similar amendment. In fact, it is the same one; I have reread my notes. I apologise. Winston Churchill once read his notes twice when making a speech to the House and, when challenged about it, he said that it showed how important the point was. 
 I shall put the amendments in an overall context. They raise three basic issues. The first is the reasonable grounds and proper warnings that a senior police officer has to believe and give in order to close premises. The second is the link between the premises and the decision made. Is it possible to define ``in the vicinity'' so that it clearly relates to premises owned by the licensee? Should the reference not be to the immediate vicinity? Should the whole relationship be closer? The third issue is whether the closure would significantly assist public safety. 
 The industry feels that it has strong support among its members and those involved for firm discipline in licensed premises. It is already involved in a range of partnerships with the police and the community. As the Minister will recall, last year he launched the BLRA partnerships initiative, which we think has worked rather well. Co-operation has been active, and 84 industry representatives have been allocated to local partnerships. There have been considerable benefits from working partnerships between the industry, the Government, local communities and the police. 
 Just outside my constituency, in Hitchin, the Unique Pub Company has worked closely with Hitchin police. Superintendent Jon Caldwell and Mr. Raynsford of Unique recently met to emphasise the way in which their close co-operation is working. Both have said that they have been impressed by their approaches to and the effects of close working. 
 The industry should not be pictured as being full of unreasonable people who want to serve their drinks without any let or hindrance, and who do not care about discipline. They clearly do care about it, as no one wants to run a rowdy pub. It is important that the proposed measures be well targeted. 
 The coverage in the trade papers shows great concern. For instance, The Licensee and Morning Advertiser on 1 February said that the first reason—namely, that there is likely to be disorder—would give wide scope to the police. It continued: 
 ``If there is a football match in town and the police think that fans might descend on `the circuit', are they going to close down all the pubs in the area, or wait until trouble happens? What is the situation where fights are developing in the street? Does the nearest innocent pub warrant a closure order while they sort it out? 
 As the Bill now stands, it is not just so-called `rowdy pubs' which are in the firing line. Many readers of this newspaper will know from personal experience that a fight can start in an instant, and they want it to end just as much as the police. It would be most unfortunate if an innocent landlord gained a double punishment—by having his bar trashed and then being forced to close for 24 hours as a result.'' 
 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, too, is worried. It says that the Bill's provisions may prove excessive and it protests that not enough checks and balances are in place to protect the legitimate business and commercial interests of licensees. It says: 
 ``Under the proposals as drafted, the `senior' police officer does not even have to be at the premises but would have the right to shut any put where violence or disorder breaks out on the recommendation of the junior officer on the spot, and regardless of the reasons behind it, the pub's previous history or the landlord's efforts to control it.'' 
It also explains that the issuing of warnings is not prescribed in the Bill, a point that the amendments seek to deal with, and that no mention is made of discussing the reasons for closure orders. 
 Of cases being taken to court, the association states: 
 ``The Bill recommends that this happen as soon as possible, but allows police to extend the closure order if this cannot happen immediately. In the meantime, the livelihood and income of many small business may be jeopardised. The ALMR believes that the appeals mechanism set out in the Bill must be strengthened and a statutory requirement be imposed on the licensing authority to meet in emergency session to review the closure order the following day. Police should not have the power to enforce extended periods of closure''. 
The association then talks about the effect that improperly targeted measures would have on the relationship between the police and the licensees. It states: 
 ``We are also concerned that these proposals may inadvertently lead to a breakdown in the relationship between licensees and the police. The regime may discourage licensees from calling the police if trouble breaks out in their premises for fear that it may lead to a closure order being issued or if the incident may be referred to in future licensing reviews.'' 
The association quite reasonably points out that 
``there are certain pubs which do not comply with best practice and act as magnets for disorder, violence and drug dealing. Similarly, some pubs will persistently breach noise regulations.'' 
It supports the general intent of the provision, but it is concerned, first, that there should be adequate protections to relate the trouble to the premises in question; and, secondly, that there should be an element of fault. 
 The Minister told the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association that his concern in using the words ``in the vicinity'' was centred on fighting among drunken and disorderly customers that spills out onto the street outside public houses. He said that such fights would be directly connected with the public house and that they would not have happened if the pub had not been open and serving alcohol in the immediate vicinity. I understand that he made his concern known to the BLRA in a letter. 
 Our amendments mirror the Minister's concern—for instance, that the disorder should be related to the premises and in the immediate vicinity. I venture to suggest that it should be possible for the Committee to reach agreement on the safeguards that are needed. I hope that we shall not have a lot of talk about guidance, although I know that he is expert in such sweet words. We need something in the Bill to safeguard the industry. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are particularly important. In the light of his views, he should be able to reach some agreement with us. 
 Finally, I turn to views of the Police Federation, and particularly those of the inspectors central committee. John Francis, the secretary of that committee, has written to me about the reduction in the number of inspectors over recent years, commenting particularly on the power to close down licensed premises. His letter states: 
 ``Provisions within the planned Criminal Justice and Police Bill include powers to close down licensed premises due to disorder by a `senior police officer'. This `senior police officer' is defined as `a police officer of or above the rank of inspector'. Where they are going to find this senior police officer when a disturbance is occurring, I cannot imagine. As an inspector myself from 1986, in a rough part of the East End of London, I remember many occasions where I stepped in and took action to control disorder at a very early stage. There was an expectation, as an Inspector that you would control licensed premises when on duty and not wait until it was so out of control that urgent measures were needed to `close them down'. This was the case with all my colleagues when they had the capacity to respond to such incidents.'' 
He is concerned about the practicality of involving an inspector in the process. 
 Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, also refers to the matter in letters to me. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient inspectors and that they will be sufficiently available? How does he imagine that the process will work? Is it a question of a mobile phone? Is it a question of ringing through or of asking the inspector to attend? 
 The provision is similar to some of the others that we will come to later in our consideration of the Bill. The police are expert in judging a situation. That expertise is based not just on what somebody says to them down a phone, but on their experience of the situation. When one talks to both junior and senior officers, they all make the point that the more experienced officer, who is used to dealing with and controlling situations, is best at judging what the proper approach is. The number of officers of experience is currently decreasing. If the Government win another general election—let us hope that they do not—they hope that they will be able to recruit sufficient youngsters to cover for those experienced officers over the succeeding years. 
 The Government state that in a force that will, if their plans work out, have more and more young constables, such decisions can be made with the inspector at arm's length, or further away—in another police station, in a car or on a mobile phone. I am concerned about whether that is the proper approach. I should be grateful if the Minister would amplify his view of how the process will work for the inspectors. 
 The Government are always introducing new powers, because they think that it is good for the headlines. In some cases, they no doubt even believe that they will work. That is all very well, but if the effect of introducing a new measure is to burden the police with further responsibilities, duties and paperwork, and if there are not sufficient officers to do the job on the ground, it is a worthless exercise. We need the Minister to supply a concrete analysis of exactly how the procedure will work in practice, to clarify the provisions. 
 The challenge for the Committee is to ensure that there are proper safeguards for the industry while retaining the ability to close rowdy public houses in short order, which we support. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I have not referred to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, because I know that he will explain them, and it will be interesting to hear his views.

John Grogan: I agree with two of the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. He mentioned The Licensee and Morning Advertiser. I should declare that I am an occasional columnist for that newspaper. Although he did not quote from my column, I was living in hope.
 There should never come a point at which a responsible licensee is afraid to call on the police because of the prospect of a closure order. That is to some extent dealt with in the notes. Paragraph 40, on page 8, refers to the fact that a police officer should 
``in deciding whether to make a closure order...take account of any conduct of the licence holder or manager of the premises in relation to the disorder and disturbance.'' 
I consider it important that that message should be conveyed to the trade. Publicans have nothing to fear, and when they need to call the police they should do so. Furthermore, the police will take into account a licensee's behaviour in deciding whether to make a closure order.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has also noticed the Government's commitment in paragraph 373 on page 68 to issuing guidance explaining that a closure order should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. That is helpful, but does he agree that safeguards should be in the Bill?

John Grogan: I believe that a high threshold should be set. There are arguments for including such a safeguard in the Bill, which none of the amendments deals with. Perhaps we should return to the matter on Report. The second point on which I wanted to agree with the hon. Gentleman is that on this and all questions relating to the closure orders, a high threshold should be maintained. That is why I disagree with amendment No. 37. The wording in the Bill, requiring closure to be
``necessary in the interests of public safety'' 
is a higher test than requiring that closure should ``significantly assist in securing'' public safety. I should be interested in the Minister's views on that. The regulatory impact assessment was mentioned, rightly; my hopes are for a lower rather than a higher figure. 
 Amendment No. 84 deals with noise. One thing that the Chamber has in common with pubs and licensed premises is that both are occasionally the subject of complaints about noise, excessive exuberance and disturbance. In both cases, the judgment to be made is very subjective. Sometimes the Chamber at its noisiest is at its best, in a democratic sense. Equally, it is difficult to make fine judgments about whether noise in pubs is excessive. Sometimes noise wafting from a pub, such as jazz on a summer evening, could entice people in. Heavy metal late at night when children are trying to sleep is clearly different. 
 I am interested in why the issue of noise has arisen with regard to closure orders. The licensing White Paper contained reference to closure orders with respect to disorderly and violent conduct, and the preservation of public safety. However, excessive noise seems now to have become a relevant issue. I do not know that there is a strong lobby among the police for such an addition to the reasons for making a closure order. I fear that there could be a danger of confusion. Should a householder call the police or environmental health officers first about a problem with a pub next door? 
 The statute book contains quite a body of legislation on noise. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities strong powers to deal with statutory nuisances, which are defined as 
``noise emitting from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance''. 
If a noise deemed to be a nuisance is occurring, or is likely to occur or recur, an abatement notice must be served by the local authority, which can even seize noise-making equipment. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 allows councils to issue antisocial behaviour orders to deal with harassment, alarm or distress, including noise pollution. If closure orders were to cut environmental health officers out of the loop difficulties could result. 
 I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to liquor licensing reform. Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of flexible hours in combating crime, and of changing the drinking culture in our country. However, the licensing White Paper proposed not only flexible hours but a new licensing system, which included a premises licence. That White Paper contained much debate about including restrictions on noise in the premises licence. An advantage of the premises licence is that if there was a noise problem, a range of sanctions would be available to the licensing authorities. Under the Bill, if a pub is closed because of excessive noise and the case reaches the magistrates, very little can be done beyond withdrawing the licence completely. 
 The issue of noise must be treated carefully. The amendment refers to warnings, but I wonder whether the police have to be involved. There could be a situation where noise is not creating disorder but is still an immediate problem, and the police might need to act on the advice of environmental health officers because they cannot deal with a situation straight away. 
 I want to stress the importance of crime and disorder partnerships to the community and industry. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned, many members of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association are involved in them. Two or three years ago, Selby had a bad reputation, but it is now safe for me, as a Member of Parliament, to go out on a Friday night to have a drink. Through a mixture of partnerships, a pubwatch scheme and closed circuit television, violent alcohol-related crime has been reduced. York, part of which is my constituency, has also been innovative in developing such partnerships. 
 Although I recognise that closure orders must deal with extreme circumstances, the way to combat alcohol-related crime in the round is to develop partnerships and reform our licensing laws so that, over time—and I appreciate that it will take time—England and Wales will develop a culture with a more civilised attitude towards alcohol.

Crispin Blunt: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
 The amendments break down into three issues. I remind the Committee that we are phrasing law that will guide the police. If we thought that the police were capable of doing everything, were always right and never abused their powers, there would be no point in our taking care to make laws and we could just leave them to get on with it. They would then be responsible for enforcing the law without checks or balances. However, our purpose is to ensure that the police operate under rules that everybody understands. That is a particularly sensitive area. Police and those who run licensed premises have different interests, and that could lead to difficulties. We have set in place the licensing system to patrol that. For example, people must go to a magistrate for a licence. The police can give evidence but the magistrates determine whether someone can be given a licence. 
 The Bill is wrong because it produces a situation where a policeman can decide to close a premises of his own volition because he believes that disorder might occur in the vicinity. 
 That leads on to amendment No. 130, which is similar to amendment No. 81. If a senior police officer is to make a judgment about the possibility of disorder, he should be acting on evidence. The evidence test would not have to be sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt or even on a balance of probability, but evidence must exist. 
 It would be wrong for police officers to be able to say that they believed that something might happen without having to offer supporting evidence in dealing with the difficult problem of licensed premises. They will have built up a picture of a particular publican's pub in a particular area. A police inspector who is particularly officious or oppressive in his policing may wish to a target a publican for reasons wholly other than the prospect of disorder around a premises. For whatever reason, he may have a downer on the publican and use all his powers to target him. If the Bill draws police powers too widely, police inspectors will be able to act oppressively towards an individual, in circumstances beyond what I understand to be the Government's intentions, as set out in the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. 
 This provision must be amended in one way or another. If the Government accept the official Opposition amendments, I will support them and not press mine, because they would improve the Bill and make the test for the police clearer. However, I prefer amendment No. 130, which simply substitutes a need for evidence for the test of the police officer having reasonable grounds for belief. Evidence would have to be produced, irrespective of how valid or weighty it is. The evidence could be only a complaint of a disturbance, but the police officer would be able to give that as his reason for imposing a closure order. 
 I want to deal with the matter of ``the vicinity of'' where the disorder will occur. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire rightly tabled amendments that make it clear that the disturbance should be in the ``immediate'' vicinity of the premises, rather than simply ``the vicinity of'' the premises, and that the disturbance in the vicinity of the premises must be related to the premises in question. I would support those amendments but I think that amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are slightly better and clearer because they would simply remove the phrase 
``or in the vicinity of''.
 The Minister described a situation to the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association where people leave a pub and engage in a fight in the street. If the police are faced with that, they arrest the people who are fighting on a charge of disorder. However, it is being suggested that the pub has become a production line. Nobody misbehaves inside the premises, but all go outside and have a punch-up or create disorder. It beggars belief that such a production line would continue so as to necessitate the closure of the pub.

Simon Hughes: As a supporter of the general proposition that such situations do not occur, I happened to be talking to the acting borough commander about the issue on a road that is well known for its pubs and late licences—the Old Kent road. If we examine the incidence of reported crime, arrests and police activity, we see that most cases occur on the premises during licensing hours. Contrary to the general view that kicking-out time causes all the problems, there are fewer problems after licensing hours outside the pubs.

Crispin Blunt: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point.
 On the amendment, I think that ``in the vicinity of'' is too widely defined. My house in my constituency is in the vicinity of Horley, which happens to be two or three miles away, so what do the words mean? Such a wide definition could cause all sorts of problems. Although inserting the word ``immediate'', as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire suggested, would be an improvement, it would still be a matter of definition. What would in the ``immediate vicinity of'' mean? After working that out, we would still have to establish that the disturbance was ``related to'' the premises. 
 We should be clear about what the licensee is responsible for: conduct and behaviour on his licensed premises. He cannot be held responsible for what happens on the street once people have left his premises. It would be much better to remove 
``or in the vicinity of''
 and I urge the Government to consider it seriously. If the disorder or noise comes from the licensed premises, the licensee is clearly responsible and, if the police make that judgment, he deserves to be subject to a closure order. That is serious, as we can see from the proposed punishment for violation of the closure order, which we will discuss later. The current drafting is too vague and could be unfair. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendments. If he does not, I hope that he will accept the offical Opposition amendments, which would at least establish in the Bill a link between the licensed premises and the disorder. 
 I want to address the question of notifying the landlord, or the person in charge of the premises at the time, that he will be the subject of a closure order. Amendment No. 4 would insert 
``Following a first and second warning''. 
In practice, the police could issue both warnings by just saying ``Here's your first warning'' and then ``Here's your second warning.'' The warnings could just be a form of words that the police use to get round the requirement. If there is to be a warning, and it is to be a proper warning, only one is necessary. 
 I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire on amendment No. 39. It would insert the words: 
 ``A closure order may only be made on the grounds specified in subsection (1)(c) if the senior police officer has given notice to the licensee that he intends to make the order, and the licensee has failed to take appropriate action to quell the disturbance.'' 
I wholly agree with the sense of that. The licensee must be given a warning. The Bill as it stands is unfair, as under it a closure order would suddenly be slapped on the licensee with no notice and no opportunity for him to put right what has gone wrong. 
 The only problem that I have with amendment No. 39 is the use of the words ``senior police officer''. My hon. Friend drew attention to his letter from the central committee of police inspectors, which said that, in case of widespread disturbance, one would not be able to send an inspector into every licensed premises to deliver that warning. I hope that he would therefore consider amendment, No. 133, which suggests the wording: 
``following at least one request from a uniformed police officer to the person ostensibly having control of the premises to end the disturbance''. 
 Amendment No. 133 would meet a situation in which the senior police officer in charge of a shift, who might be faced with considerable disorder across the whole of his division, was trying to control the division from a central position. He could say that he had received evidence that he needed to shut down any number of licensed premises to stop the source of disturbance. Having made the closure order, he could give instructions by radio or other means from his central location to a uniformed police officer on the scene. That officer could give the warning that if the problem could not be sorted out, the premises would have to be closed down. 
 It would be unreasonable to expect the inspector, in all situations, to go to all premises to issue the warning. It is essential that a warning should be issued, but the balance of judgment is that only one warning should be given, and that it should be given by any uniformed police officer rather than necessarily by the inspector.

Simon Hughes: I do not want to stand firmly to the two-warning position, although I want a warning procedure. The only addition that I would make to the hon. Gentleman's proposition is that the legislation must give a reasonable period in which a reasonable licensee could act on the warning before any action as envisaged in the legislation could take place. A warning procedure is required, as is time to act on it, if we are to have rational legislation.

Crispin Blunt: I agree in a sense, but there is a question about practicality. The test is between what is realistic for the police in the circumstances and the reality for the licensee. It would tie the police's hands unnecessarily if the Bill stated that the licensee had 15 minutes to sort out the problem, yet it was plain to the police that the place needed to be closed down as soon as possible because it was completely out of control and the licensee did not have a cat in hell's chance of sorting it out, however long he was given.
 Some judgment must be exercised about the powers to be delegated to the police in those circumstances. It would tie them too much to say that the warning order had to be followed by a set length of time. That judgment must be made by a police officer. 
 I hope that my amendments will commend themselves to the Government, as they would achieve exactly what they have set out to do. I fear that the Bill is currently much too widely drawn. The matter is already controlled, as people have to obtain a licence in the first place. To a degree, there will be tension between the police and those who run licensed premises, as there is already, so I hope that the Government will consider my amendments.

Charles Clarke: This has been a most interesting discussion, and I would like to make some general points at the outset.
 As hon. Members will know, the Portman Group is a respected organisation that works closely with the licensed industry. The group commissioned a MORI survey, which it published in January of this year, in which 14 per cent. of people reported that they had been the victim of violence in pubs. That seemed to me a very large figure indeed. About 20 per cent. of frequent drinkers had been victims of violence in pubs. I was struck by those figures. It seems to me that, overall, although many such polls are simply a matter of subjective assessment, the data show that there is an issue that must be tackled. That is why the Portman Group published them. 
 Secondly, I want to pay public tribute to the industry itself and its various organisations, some of which have been referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, which have worked closely with the Government, and across government, to develop a more positive approach to all the matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, the industry and its organisations believe that it is important that we reach a state of affairs where alcohol is not seen as a cause of crime; where people can go and have a quiet drink in the evening and that can be seen simply as a normal part of life. The organisations, the brewers and the licensees know that it is important to ensure that people who work in their industry but do not live up to its standards should not be seen as representative of it. They have been positive about many of the proposals that we have discussed. 
 Thirdly, it is important to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, about the importance of partnership. Soon after I started doing this job I was most impressed by a visit that I paid to the city of York, where there is a joint operation run by the police, the local authority and the licensees. That operation is a close partnership, with a whole set of requirements about the way in which people work together. It is designed to achieve the kind of position that my hon. Friend is talking about, where licensees feel confident in the police and work with them to tackle the issues that arise as they arise, and where police respect licensees. I pay tribute to what has been done in the city of York. I will not take up the Committee's time by giving further examples, but there are many places other than York where that kind of joint work has been positively developed. Nothing in the Bill should be seen as undermining that type of critical relationship. 
 Fourthly, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a point about safeguards for the industry and proper targeting—that constellation of issues. Just as we support partnerships, we share entirely the aspiration expressed by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the matter. It would be appalling if powers in the Bill were to lead to a disentangling of the relations through improper targeting, if that is the right phrase, or through blanket operations in particular chunks of cities, or by any other means. 
 We agree with that point, and we agree that it is right to debate the amendments that have been put forward by the industry to clarify and draw out the issues in a constructive way. In that context, it is necessary to have a high threshold for action to be taken, so that it will be seen as a rare rather than a frequent event for any of the actions set out in the Bill to be taken. I emphasise that the Government do not believe that thousands of pubs around the country are acting in an unacceptable way, on which, through the powers of the Bill, the firm hand of the law will come down. Incidents of unacceptable behaviour are isolated, but the matter must be dealt with. Isolated targeting is at the core of our approach. 
 My next point relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate. This is an issue for all of us. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire decries guidance, but police conduct is an issue. It is a matter of how the police are trained, under what guidance they are operating, and how they normally proceed, for example in the area of warnings, which we will discuss in detail in a moment. It is the practice of the police, who have constantly to decide on different uses of their powers, to warn. I suspect that, usually, they would warn on many occasions, because they are the first to recognise that if they use their powers in a way that is perceived as arbitrary or dictatorial, they will not succeed in making the law work. 
 Our guidance will deal with those matters in the most effective way. I believe—it is not an evasion—that it is our job as legislators to set the legal framework, but that its implementation is a matter for guidance. How it is to be implemented should be a professional matter for the police, and it should be the subject of consultation and debate—including debate by the House. 
 I want to make one final, general point. There has been talk—not here today, but on other occasions—suggesting that the powers could be thought of as draconian. That is not right. I refer to what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said at the start of his speech about costs and the implications for business. New section 179A(2) defines a closure order as 
``an order requiring relevant licensed premises to be closed for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours beginning with the coming into force of the order''. 
It might often be a great deal less time than that; it might be until midnight, until what would otherwise have been closing time, or from 10.30 pm until 2 am. It is not right to describe such a power as draconian. I am not trying to put words into the mouths of Opposition Members, but in debates on later amendments we shall be discussing the work of magistrates and so forth. It is not an arbitrary power that could put someone out of business; it is a particular power to deal with the particular circumstances of disorderly pubs. That is the context in which I want to address the amendments. I shall deal with them one by one in a moment.

Oliver Heald: An important point of principle, which the Minister and I have debated on other occasions, is that the law should set down the powers that Parliament wants to give to the police; but it should be restricted to that. Ministers often present measures that are widely drawn and then say that guidance will be issued to ensure that they are properly focused. There is a difference between us on that. I believe that the law should state clearly what the powers are. I admit that a case can be made for guidance, but if the law is wrong, guidance will not provide justice.
 I hope that the Minister agrees with me. If he is saying to the industry that it should be the immediate vicinity, as he does in the notes, how can he not accept an amendment that says so? If he is writing to members of the industry, saying that it is related to the premises, why will he not accept amendments that say just that? Guidance is no substitute for getting the law right.

Charles Clarke: I shall come to the amendment on vicinity in a moment; I wish to answer the serious points that have been made on that subject. However, I must first address the practical and principled point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
 The principled point is as follows. I do not accept—I doubt whether the previous Government accepted it—that we can write into primary legislation every bit of guidance on how we want it to operate. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about its being necessary to make it clear in legislation what the powers are and when they should be used, which is what we seek to do, but I do not accept that we need to give guidance on every aspect in primary legislation. That is why we have secondary legislation. That is why we have a hierarchy of documents that are not even legislative that can be used to develop best practice, to ensure that all parties can take part in the debate and so on. I am not sure from the hon. Gentleman's response whether that is a difference between us—[Interruption.] I am glad that he has confirmed it. In that case, I agree with him that there is a principled difference of opinion between us, and I shall take it to the barricades if necessary. 
 It is right to respect the hierarchy of law making; it has existed for decades under Governments of all parties. It goes from primary legislation to secondary legislation, guidance and so on. It is a good way to legislate, and I defend it in principle. I also defend it in practice. We have that structure because circumstances change; the question is whether it is necessary to return to full primary legislation to reflect those changes. On many occasions, we have been handicapped by the relative slowness and stickiness of Parliament to legislate to reflect such changes. For instance, the industry has changed. The average town centre is fundamentally different from when the hon. Gentleman and I were in our late teens or early 20s. The sort of places that exist, the role that we might wish the police to have, and the role of the licensee are all different. We should be able to change and deal with that situation in a practical way.

Oliver Heald: I am sorry to keep troubling the Minister, particularly with only 59 seconds to go, but if the law is written tightly and effectively, it safeguards the interests of the industry and the individual. If it is written as wide as the Bill, a publican in a bad case could be closed down—
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.